the end of nature

[the_grynne]

The stuff you end up reading for a philosophy course on environmental sustainability... *whistles* I'd never felt so unmoored in any subject before. There is such an overabundance of literature, and the debate is so heated and fast and dynamic - because of its newness as a topic and because of the urgency which all its theorists and commentators

Comments

[altesse]

Have you read Wilfred Beckerman and Joanna Pasek's Justice, Posterity and the Environment? One's an economist and the other's a philosopher and they're married. They taught the course that probably saved my skin from failing university. Their conclusion is essentially that arguments for environmental conservation on the basis of intergenerational justice are bunk, because there is no way of ensuring 'equal share of natural resources' for future generations without destroying any hope for their existence to begin with, because excessive conservation might mean we'll conserve the human race into extinction. A typical economist's answer, but interesting because it shows how absurd it would be if proponents of 'sustainable development' kept their word and carried it to its logical conclusion.

[the_grynne]

I haven't, and shall definitely add that to the list, although...

arguments for environmental conservation on the basis of intergenerational justice are bunk, because there is no way of ensuring 'equal share of natural resources' for future generations without destroying any hope for their existence to begin with

My objection in the first lecture that we had was on that same issue but the other side - I wondered if our efforts and resouces aren't better directed at achieving the greatest amount of social justice for the world's already existing population now than for hypothetical future members of humanity? I'm okay with the idea of humanity's slow extinction, to be honest; what I'm not okay with is children starving in Africa so that they can have a possible lease on life. But then arguments for intergenerational justice always strike me as bloody unsound, whether its in economics or environment politics.

[the_grynne]

Eh. Sentence got a bit jumbled. That's meant to say:

what I'm not okay with is children starving in Africa now so that our children can have a possible lease on life.

[altesse]

our efforts and resouces aren't better directed at achieving the greatest amount of social justice for the world's already existing population now than for hypothetical future members of humanity

Yes, exactly, that's the point they make in the book.

Did you read about Parfit's non-identity problem too? The one that says that if we carry out Policy D which depletes resources, then we are still better off because the people who would not have been born had we carried out Policy C, which conserves resources, were actually born, while those people who would have been born had Policy C been carried out didn't come into existence so they can't have suffered harm.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[sushil_yadav]

The link between Mind and Social / Environmental-Issues.

The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct

Re: Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[the_grynne]

Um. Okay... Thanks for the links.

[rez_lo]

Not to mention: incredibly depressing.

My problem with so much of the scholarship in the social sciences as well. I can't think properly while depressed.

[the_grynne]

Heh. No, I keep getting distracted by the "oh fucks" and the righteous indignation. *g*